Comments on footnotes 9 and 10, p. 28 of the article“When was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed, Part Two. What the Clay Documents Really Show,” The Watchtower, Nov. 1, 2011, pp. 22-28.
Footnote 10 asks whether Bel-shum-ishkun [Belšumiškun] could have ruled for a time between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar.[See further note below on the identity of Bel-shum-ishkun, who, contra the WT’s suggestion, was not one of the kings of Babylon.]
Was there a gap between the reigns of Amel-Marduk and Nerigilissar?
Dr. Ronald H. Sack, the scholar whom the WT cites in footnote 9, is the scholar who first published tablet BM 75489 (No. 91) in his book Neriglissar -- King of Babylon, published in 1994.I own a copy of this book as well as two other booksand various articles written by Prof. Sack.What he actually says on page 26 of Neriglissar – King of Babylon is that tablet BM 75489 identifies Neriglissar as king of Babylon EARLIER than previously thought.
Rather than there being a GAP between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar as the Watchtower suggests in footnote 10, the tablet they cite in footnote 9 actually shows a three-month OVERLAP in the documents from the reigns of Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar.
The gross misrepresentation of the work of Dr. Sack and the other scholars who are quoted out of context in this Watchtower article is shameful. I wrote to Dr. Sack telling him about this, and he gave me permission to scan and post some pages from his book Neriglissar – King of Babylon.
Note on Bel-shum-ishkun –
AnnOMaly provided a link upthread, http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf3/review5.htm , to a thorough discussion of “Belšumiškun, king of Babylon.”Scroll down about a third of the page to section 5.Not one of the thousands of extant dated administrative/legal tablets refers to Belšumiškun as king. See esp. the comments by Assyriologist Michael Jursa.
Marjorie Alley 9/10/2011
Alleymom
JoinedPosts by Alleymom
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
I wrote to Dr. Ronald H. Sack about the misrepresentation of his work in the Nov. 1, 2011 WT article. I have been reading his work for years and told him that I own three of his books and have copies of some of his articles. I let him know that I planned to post information on this board about footnotes 9 and 10 on page 28 of the article, regarding the transition between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar. I asked him for permission to scan and post pages from his book Neriglissar - King of Babylon. He wrote back about 45 minutes ago and gave permission to post the scans. He said he appreciates responsible people familiar with his work who will not tolerate such misrepresentation.
Marjorie Alley
-
85
July 15th WT- Don't Research " False Stories " - Inspired by Satan !
by flipper ini know the poster lost generation made a fantastic thread on this july 15th apostate article, however - i noticed some very powerful points on pg.
17 paragraphs 9 - 11 which weren't brought out that i feel needed to be touched on.
as was brought out in his thread this article told jw's to avoid apostates because they are " mentally diseased " allegedly and to avoid their web sites, not read their literature, watch t.v.
-
-
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
Welcome to Muzikman74!
-
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
Cadellin, Muzikman, VM44 --
Re Prof. Sack, I own three of his books (one of them thanks to VM44 last year!) and have copies of some of his articles. Footnote 9 in conjunction with footnote 10 totally distort what he has written about the transition between kings. Cadellin, since you are especially interested in the Watchtower's continued misuse of other people's words and research, you would probably like to see the details on what is really going on with footnotes 9 and 10. I've been tied up with other things, but will try to post the quotes and scans soon.
AnnOMaly -- sorry it took me awhile, but I did scan page 61 of Dougherty and post it a few days ago.
VM44 and AnnOMaly -- I have been in touch with Prof. Willis, the scientist who, together with F. Richard Stephenson, published the article(s) on the Lunar Three measurements in VAT 4956. When I told Prof. Willis that the inside cover of the WT says that 42+ million copies of the issue will be distributed worldwide in 188 languages, he got on the phone with Prof. Stephenson. Prof. Stephenson will be sending me a written response in a week or so. Prof. Willis will be travelling outside the country.
-
12
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Part Two
by Maze inan excellent presentation of secular archeology supporting jerusalem's destruction in 607 b.c.e:.
http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111101.pdf.
when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?.
-
-
Alleymom
CoC, you certainly don't need to apologize! I wanted to be sure Maze (or anyone else) knows that if they talk to me they are not talking to a an apostate. Of course, there's no getting around it, I am posting on what just might be considered an "apostate website."
-
12
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Part Two
by Maze inan excellent presentation of secular archeology supporting jerusalem's destruction in 607 b.c.e:.
http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111101.pdf.
when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?.
-
-
Alleymom
I am not an apostate. I have never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, nor have I ever studied with the JW's.
My husband used to be on the editorial staff of Biblical Archaeology Review, which is when I became interested in archaeology.Marjorie Alley
[* Edited to add, he's not an apostate, either. So, Maze, if you would like to PM me, feel free.]
-
12
When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Part Two
by Maze inan excellent presentation of secular archeology supporting jerusalem's destruction in 607 b.c.e:.
http://download.jw.org/files/media_magazines/wp_e_20111101.pdf.
when was ancient jerusalem destroyed?.
-
-
Alleymom
Maze,
Are you aware that the article you say is "an excellent presentation of secular archeology supporting Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C.E." was sent to one of the scholars cited in the article? Are you aware that he says the article completely misrepresents his work and the work of other scholars?
See my post 1263
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/215282/5/WT-Nov-1-2011-public-When-Was-Ancient-Jerusalem-Destroyed-Part-2
for the email from Dr. John M. Steele. -
322
WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2
by AnnOMaly inout now.. yes, yes, yessssss!
on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.
"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.
-
-
Alleymom
AnnOMaly, post 2039 -- Here is the scan of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, p. 61.
-
9
Scans of Consolation, Dec 25, 1940, favorable blood transfusion story
by Alleymom ini have seen scans of the december 25, 1940 consolation story before, but today i came across a site where the complete issue can be downloaded: http://www.archive.org/details/1938-1940consolation.
.
-
-
Alleymom
Wobble, there have been several threads about the Dutch edition of Consolation.
Esp. see Blondie's post 30460.
Hopefully someone else here can answer your question.
Edited to say: TD has provided the answer!
